GURBACHAN SINGH Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 16 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 seeking to revise the order dated 8.6.2000 of the Commissioner, Ferozepore Division, Ferozepore, and the order dated 22.10.1998 of the District Collector, Mukatsar, and to restore the order dated 15.1.1998 of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Malout, in mutation proceedings.

(2.) MUTATIONS No. 2659 and 2663 of village Shamkot, Tehsil Malout, District Mukatsar were entered on the basis of registered sale deeds No. 2179 and 2178 dated 15.12.1995 for Rs. 17500/- and Rs. 36000/- respectively executed by Jarnail Singh, Mukhtiar-e-Aam of Gabo d/o Bhagat Singh, in favour of the respondent. The first sale deed is for Khasra No. 8//110/2/1 (2-9) and the second is for 5K 12M being 112/1929 share in the joint holding of 96K 9M. The petitioner objected that Gabo had died on the way to India during Partition, that she had left no issue, that the sale deeds had been executed and registered by impersonation and fraud, and that possession had not been transferred. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade rejected the mutations on the ground that possession had not been transferred in pursuance of the registered sale deed.

(3.) GABO is shown in the revenue record to be vendor in possession of Khasra No. 8/10/2/1(2-9) and as shareholder of 112/1929 share in the joint holding of 96K 9M. It is settled law that a co-owner can transfer possession of his/her share in the joint holding and that a mutation on the basis of a registered sale deed which contains a recital that possession has been transferred for consideration is to be sanctioned unless there are compelling reasons for doing otherwise. No doubt the petitioner's witnesses testified that Gabo had died in Pakistan, and that they had never seen Gabo in village Shamkot, but this does not explain how and why the name of Gabo appeared and continued in the revenue record.